July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5737 

success of the National Diabetes Prevention Program to Medicare. Nearly 

26 million American adults have diabetes, and if this disturbing trend doesn’t 

stop, over half of the adult population 

will either have Type 2 diabetes or its 

precursor, ‘‘prediabetes,’’ by 2020. 

Sadly, my home State of West Virginia has one of the highest diabetes 

rates in the Nation. In 2009, approximately 174,000 adults, which is 11 percent of West Virginia adults, had diabetes. According to Centers for Disease 

Control estimates, as many as 50 percent of the nearly 380,000 people with 

Medicare in West Virginia may be at 

risk of developing this serious, but preventable, illness. If current trends continue, one in three children born in 

West Virginia after the year 2000 will 

develop diabetes within his or her lifetime and people with diabetes risk developing terrible complications down 

the road, including heart disease, 

stroke, blindness, and amputations. 

Diabetes is also one of the main cost 

drivers in our health care system. The 

direct economic burden of diabetes was 

$116 billion for medical expenses and 

indirect costs totaled $58 billion due to 

disability, work loss, or premature 

death in 2007. The costs associated with 

this preventable disease for Medicare 

beneficiaries are expected to grow to $2 

trillion over the 2011 to 2020 period. 

We simply cannot stand idly by in 

the face of such overwhelming statistics—and fortunately, there is a way to 

prevent Type 2 diabetes. The National 

Diabetes Prevention Program, NDPP, 

is an innovative approach that has 

demonstrated its effects in preventing 

the onset of Type 2 diabetes. The NDPP 

is a proven, community-based intervention that focuses on changing lifestyle 

behaviors of prediabetic overweight or 

obese adults through activities that 

improve dietary choices and increase 

physical activity in a group setting. In 

a large-scale clinical trial that has 

been replicated in community settings, 

NDPP successfully reduced the onset of 

diabetes by 58 percent overall and 71 

percent in adults over 60. 

Because of the impressive success of 

the National Diabetes Prevention Program, I believe our seniors should have 

access to its benefits. The Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act of 2012 will help 

seniors prevent Type 2 diabetes by allowing Medicare to provide the National Diabetes Prevention Program 

through community settings like the 

YMCA, local health departments, or 

even the local church, reaching people 

with Medicare wherever they live. In 

the past, physicians have had few tools 

for their patients who are found to be 

at risk of diabetes. Under this bill, if a 

senior is found at risk for diabetes, for 

example, through their annual wellness 

visit, their doctor will be able to refer 

them to an NDPP program in their 

area. 

Unlike Medicare, which needs a Federal legislative change to cover this 

program, State Medicaid programs already have the authority to pay for 

this innovative initiative, and it is my 

hope that more states will do so. By 

2020, Medicaid is expected to cover 13 

million people with diabetes and about 

9 million people who may have pre-diabetes, and states will spend an estimated $83 billion on individuals with 

diabetes or pre-diabetes. The National 

Diabetes Prevention program presents 

an opportunity for States to reduce the 

incidence of diabetes among individuals enrolled in their Medicaid programs, an especially strategic investment when combined with the expansion of the Medicaid program under 

health reform. 

The coverage of proven solutions 

under Medicare is nothing new. Yet, 

rather than providing a traditional 

drug or procedure, NDPP allows at-risk 

individuals to change their lifestyles 

through a community intervention. 

Implementing NDPP is a unique response to the alarming and escalating 

rates of diabetes. This public health solution has demonstrated tangible results that can enable our country to 

prevent diabetes, while reducing health 

care costs. The NDPP is a strategic and 

cost-effective intervention that costs 

less than $500 per person to deliver, 

compared to the estimated $15,000 per 

year spent on each Medicare beneficiary with diabetes. According to the 

Urban Institute, implementing the 

NDPP nationally could save $191 billion over the next 10 years, with 75 percent of the savings, $142.9 billion, going 

to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

Better yet, the National Diabetes 

Prevention Program is a job creator, 

bringing diabetes trainers to more 

communities nationwide to provide the 

program. West Virginia has already received funding from the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention 

through a Community Transformation 

Grant that will allow the State to 

train at least 100 community health 

workers to help disseminate the Diabetes Prevention Program in the State 

over the next 5 years. 

The Medicare Diabetes Prevention 

Act has been endorsed by the American 

Diabetes Association, American Heart 

Association, American Public Health 

Association, National Association of 

Chronic Disease Directors, National 

Association of State Long-Term Care 

Ombudsman Programs, National Council on Aging, Novo Nordisk, Trust for 

America’s Health, the YMCA of the 

USA, and State YMCA affiliates in 

over 45 States. With so many Americans at risk for developing diabetes and 

its potentially severe complications, 

today is the right time for Medicare to 

extend the proven National Diabetes 

Prevention Program as a covered benefit to seniors. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

timely and important piece of legislation. 

By Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota: 

S. 3464. A bill to amend the Mni 

Wiconi Project Act of 1988 to facilitate 

completion of the Mni Wiconi Rural 

Water Supply System, and for other 

purposes; to the Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources. 

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. 

President, today I introduced legislation to facilitate completion of the Mni 

Wiconi Rural Water System. The Mni 

Wiconi Project provides quality drinking water to three Indian Reservations 

and a non-tribal rural water system in 

western South Dakota that have historically faced insufficient and, in too 

many cases, unsafe drinking water. 

I have been involved with this project 

for the entirety of my 25 year congressional career, including sponsoring authorizing legislation that was ultimately enacted in 1988. In authorizing 

the project, Congress found that the 

United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate and safe 

water supplies are available to meet 

the economic, environmental, water 

supply, and public health needs of the 

Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, Rosebud Indian Reservation, and Lower 

Brule Indian Reservation. With treated 

drinking water from the Missouri River 

now reaching most of the three reservations, as well as the 7 county area 

of the West River/Lyman-Jones Rural 

Water System, we are very close to 

completing this critically important 

project. 

Unfortunately, appropriations have 

failed to keep pace with projected 

timelines, and additional costs have 

cut into construction funding. Accordingly, the project requires an increase 

in the cost ceiling and extension of its 

authorization in order to be completed 

and serve the design population. Without an adjustment to the cost ceiling, 

some portions of the Oglala Sioux 

Rural Water Supply System and Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System will remain incomplete. The legislation I 

have introduced today addresses this 

shortfall and other important aspects 

of the project. The legislation also directs other Federal agencies that support rural water development to assist 

the Bureau of Reclamation in improving and repairing existing community 

water systems that are important components of the project. 

Our Federal responsibility to address 

the tremendous need for adequate and 

safe drinking water supplies on the 

Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule 

Indian Reservations remains as important today as it was 25 years ago. I 

look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this modest but important legislation. 

f 

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS 

SENATE RESOLUTION 534—CONGRATULATING THE NAVY DENTAL CORPS ON ITS 100TH ANNIVERSARY 

Mr. MANCHIN submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5738 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

S. RES. 534 

Whereas on August 22, 1912, Congress 

passed an Act recognizing Navy dentistry as 

a distinct branch among naval medical professions; 

Whereas throughout history, the Navy 

Dental Corps has supported the Navy by sustaining sailor and marine readiness and providing routine and emergency dental care, 

ashore and afloat, in peace and in war; 

Whereas the Navy Dental Corps works continuously to improve the health of sailors, 

marines, and their families by supporting individual and community prevention initiatives, good oral hygiene practices, and treatment; 

Whereas the Navy Dental Corps endeavors 

to improve oral health worldwide by participating in the spectrum of military combat, 

peacekeeping, and humanitarian operations 

and exercises; 

Whereas the Navy Dental Corps, in collaboration with national and international dental organizations, promotes dental professionalism and quality of care; 

Whereas the Navy Dental Corps supports 

the mission of the Federal dental research 

program and endorses improved dental technologies and therapies through research and 

adherence to sound scientific principles; and 

Whereas the Navy Dental Corps recognizes 

the importance of continuing professional 

dental education, requiring and supporting 

specialty dental education and postgraduate 

residencies and fellowships for its members: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Senate— 

(1) congratulates the Navy Dental Corps on 

its 100th anniversary; 

(2) commends the Navy Dental Corps for 

working to sustain the dental readiness and 

the oral health of a superb fighting force; 

and 

(3) recognizes the thousands of dentists 

who have served in the Navy Dental Corps 

over the last 100 years, providing dental care 

to millions of members of the Armed Forces 

and their families. 

f 

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND 

PROPOSED 

SA 2665. Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, to enhance 

the security and resiliency of the cyber and 

communications infrastructure of the United 

States; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

SA 2666. Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, supra; which 

was ordered to lie on the table. 

SA 2667. Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, supra; which 

was ordered to lie on the table. 

SA 2668. Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mrs. 

MCCASKILL, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. BARRASSO, Ms. 

AYOTTE, Mrs. SHAHEEN, and Mr. UDALL of 

New Mexico) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 

3414, supra; which was ordered to lie on the 

table. 

SA 2669. Mr. RUBIO submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2670. Mr. RUBIO submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2671. Mr. RUBIO submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2672. Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, supra; which 

was ordered to lie on the table. 

SA 2673. Mr. DEMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2674. Mr. DEMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2675. Ms. MURKOWSKI submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed to 

amendment SA 2645 submitted by Mr. BINGAMAN and intended to be proposed to the bill 

S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie on 

the table. 

SA 2676. Ms. MURKOWSKI submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by her 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2677. Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself 

and Ms. MIKULSKI) submitted an amendment 

intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 

3414, supra; which was ordered to lie on the 

table. 

SA 2678. Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself 

and Ms. MIKULSKI) submitted an amendment 

intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 

3414, supra; which was ordered to lie on the 

table. 

SA 2679. Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself 

and Ms. MIKULSKI) submitted an amendment 

intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 

3414, supra; which was ordered to lie on the 

table. 

SA 2680. Mr. WYDEN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2681. Mr. WYDEN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2682. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2683. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2684. Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself, Mr. 

HATCH, Mr. KYL, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. RUBIO, 

Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. VITTER, 

Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. BARRASSO , Mr. COBURN, 

Mr. COATS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. WICKER , and Mr. 

JOHANNS) submitted an amendment intended 

to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, 

supra; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

SA 2685. Mrs. GILLIBRAND submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by her 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2686. Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself and 

Mr. BENNET) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 

3414, supra; which was ordered to lie on the 

table. 

SA 2687. Mrs. GILLIBRAND submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by her 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2688. Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. 

KIRK) submitted an amendment intended to 

be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, supra; 

which was ordered to lie on the table. 

SA 2689. Mr. BENNET (for himself and Mr. 

COBURN) submitted an amendment intended 

to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, 

supra; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

SA 2690. Ms. MURKOWSKI submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by her 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2691. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by her 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2692. Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. 

MCCAIN, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. GRASSLEY, Ms. 

MURKOWSKI, Mr. COATS, Mr. BURR, and Mr. 

JOHNSON of Wisconsin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2693. Mr. COATS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2694. Mr. COATS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2695. Mr. SESSIONS submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by him 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2696. Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mrs. 

HUTCHISON, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. GRASSLEY, 

Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. COATS, Mr. BURR, and 

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin) submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by him 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2697. Mr. MCCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2698. Mr. PORTMAN submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by him 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2699. Mr. DEMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 

bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie 

on the table. 

SA 2700. Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. PRYOR) submitted 

an amendment intended to be proposed by 

him to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

SA 2701. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. 

PAUL, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. COONS, 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. UDALL of 

New Mexico, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. SCHUMER, 

Ms. CANTWELL, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. BEGICH, 

Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. HARKIN) submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by him 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2702. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. 

PAUL, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. COONS, 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. UDALL of 

New Mexico, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. SCHUMER, 

Ms. CANTWELL, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. BEGICH, 

Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. HARKIN) submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by him 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2703. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. 

PAUL, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. COONS, 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. UDALL of 

New Mexico, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. SCHUMER, 

Ms. CANTWELL, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. BEGICH, 

Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. HARKIN) submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by him 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2704. Ms. CANTWELL submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by her 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2705. Ms. CANTWELL submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by her 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2706. Mrs. MURRAY submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by her 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2707. Ms. CANTWELL submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by her 

to the bill S. 3414, supra; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

SA 2708. Ms. CANTWELL submitted an 

amendment intended to be proposed by her 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE